Southern Poverty Law Center sues Daily Stormer

[Draica]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 2bf18422df

One of the major public figureheads of the alt right, Andrew Anglin, has launched an assault on a Jewish realtor who he claimed extorted Richard Spencer's mother. Long story short, he and his far-right, pro-white identitarian, racist leeches decided to harrass the woman, send her threatening phone calls and voice messages, harrass her husband and her twelve year old son.

However, he's stepped on the wrong toes. The Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the nation's oldest civil rights organizations that is responsible for damaging the Klan and outright destroying various other neo-nazi hate groups is now targeting him in a lawsuit. The lawsuit itself can be read here:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default ... _final.pdf

I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.

I am happy that the SPLC filed this lawsuit (I generally do not agree with them on a lot, but this endeavor I whole-heartedly support) and if it works out in Miss Gersh's favor I believe the Daily Stormer and the alt right will have been struck a tremendous blow.

Your thoughts, NSG?

[Napkiraly]

I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.

Question, does this standard apply to those calling for businesses to fire employees that are caught saying the wrong thing as defined by the public of the current times?

[Draica]

I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.

Question, does this standard apply to those calling for businesses to fire employees that are caught saying the wrong thing as defined by the public of the current times?

Is the wrong thing advancing a cause or proposal that is actively impeding, inhibiting, or harming another individual's livelihood? Of course not.

But when you get into the realm of private enterprise the lines become blurred; I am for protection against the Government sanctioning acceptable forms or speech and unacceptable forms of speech, those who own a business can do whatever they please (or should be able to, in my view).

[Napkiraly]

Question, does this standard apply to those calling for businesses to fire employees that are caught saying the wrong thing as defined by the public of the current times?

Is the wrong thing advancing a cause or proposal that is actively impeding, inhibiting, or harming another individual's livelihood? Of course not.

But when you get into the realm of private enterprise the lines become blurred; I am for protection against the Government sanctioning acceptable forms or speech and unacceptable forms of speech, those who own a business can do whatever they please (or should be able to, in my view).

That's not what I asked.

You said if it impedes, inhibits, or harms another's livelihood then it is no longer free speech but becomes harassment. That can open up the door to declaring demanding people be fired or face a boycott being charged with harassment. That's why harassment isn't defined by those parameters but rather repeated un-consented contact that serves no purpose than to annoy, create alarm, and cause emotional distress.

[Proctopeo]

While I, too, often find the SPLC disagreeable, this? This I like. More of "suing people for breaking the law" and less "publicizing a man's financial and medical situation because he talks about men's rights on a blog".

[Free Republics]

I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.

Question, does this standard apply to those calling for businesses to fire employees that are caught saying the wrong thing as defined by the public of the current times?

I'd be all in favor of that, personally. Unfortunately, Gawker isn't around anymore for the victims of their harassment campaigns to sue.

---

Regarding the actual case, if the allegations are true and if the Daily Stormer was in fact behind them, then I don't have any problem with the SPLC suing them on behalf of one of their victims. Granted, this is an organization whose primary purpose seems to be defaming people but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Draica]

Is the wrong thing advancing a cause or proposal that is actively impeding, inhibiting, or harming another individual's livelihood? Of course not.

But when you get into the realm of private enterprise the lines become blurred; I am for protection against the Government sanctioning acceptable forms or speech and unacceptable forms of speech, those who own a business can do whatever they please (or should be able to, in my view).

That's not what I asked.

You said if it impedes, inhibits, or harms another's livelihood then it is no longer free speech but becomes harassment. That can open up the door to declaring demanding people be fired or face a boycott being charged with harassment. That's why harassment isn't defined by those parameters but rather repeated un-consented contact that serves no purpose than to annoy, create alarm, and cause emotional distress.

Perhaps my standard for harrassment was rather loosely coined, for that I apologize. But still, harrassment (as you put it) still has an element that is destructive to the livelihood of the victim. Emotional distress is harmful, as is any distress, so harrassment in a sense can be defined by the standard I put it in.

But you're right, if we adopt my standard then we begin walking on very rocky terrain.

[Werftkrieg]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/04/18/the-man-behind-the-neo-nazi-daily-stormer-website-is-being-sued-by-one-of-his-troll-storm-targets/?utm_term=.c42bf18422df

One of the major public figureheads of the alt right, Andrew Anglin, has launched an assault on a Jewish realtor who he claimed extorted Richard Spencer's mother. Long story short, he and his far-right, pro-white identitarian, racist leeches decided to harrass the woman, send her threatening phone calls and voice messages, harrass her husband and her twelve year old son.

However, he's stepped on the wrong toes. The Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the nation's oldest civil rights organizations that is responsible for damaging the Klan and outright destroying various other neo-nazi hate groups is now targeting him in a lawsuit. The lawsuit itself can be read here:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default ... _final.pdf

I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.

I am happy that the SPLC filed this lawsuit (I generally do not agree with them on a lot, but this endeavor I whole-heartedly support) and if it works out in Miss Gersh's favor I believe the Daily Stormer and the alt right will have been struck a tremendous blow.

Your thoughts, NSG?

Define threatening.

[Liriena]

I wish the SPLC the best of luck against those Nazi twits. Free speech is not speech free of consequences, and when the things you say hurt or endanger innocents, specially in the form of hate speech, you deserve to face severe consequences.

[Gauthier]

This is going to be that sweaty cartoon, this time with the buttons labeled "Hate On SPLC" and "Defend Richard Spencer's Mother".

[Werftkrieg]

This is going to be that sweaty cartoon, this time with the buttons labeled "Hate On SPLC" and "Defend Richard Spencer's Mother".

Met Spencer once. Mis mother did not do a good job with him,

[Proctopeo]

This is going to be that sweaty cartoon, this time with the buttons labeled "Hate On SPLC" and "Defend Richard Spencer's Mother".

There's a dichotomy?

[Gauthier]

This is going to be that sweaty cartoon, this time with the buttons labeled "Hate On SPLC" and "Defend Richard Spencer's Mother".

There's a dichotomy?

The mother of Richard Spencer- the right's martyr against SJWs- being defended by the nation's oldest SJW organization. But if you want to shut your eyes to the irony like the Nazis just opened the Ark of the Covenant be my guest.

[Saiwania]

I'm not inclined to believe the SPLC on anything, they're a bunch of liberal activists with an agenda. If this far right outlet is causing legal problems for themselves, they'll just have to settle or fight it out. The SPLC succeeding against them or not, depends a great deal on whether whoever they're shaking down has money that can be collected or not. If they don't have money, this is just squeezing blood from a stone. Lawyers are only interested in going after money that can actually be seized.

[Proctopeo]

There's a dichotomy?

The mother of Richard Spencer- the right's martyr against SJWs- being defended by the nation's oldest SJW organization. But if you want to shut your eyes to the irony like the Nazis just opened the Ark of the Covenant be my guest.

That's not what I'm seeing in the OP nor the article. But, then again, I'm pretty tired...

As an aside, the WaPo article has a case of what is called "gamedropping", which is always funny to see in an article with basically no relation, outside of logical twists and bends.

[Draica]

I'm not inclined to believe the SPLC on anything, they're a bunch of liberal activists with an agenda. If this far right outlet is causing legal problems for themselves, they'll just have to settle or fight it out. The SPLC succeeding against them or not, depends a great deal on whether whoever they're shaking down has money that can be collected or not. If they don't have money, this is just squeezing blood from a stone. Lawyers are only interested in going after money that can actually be seized.

This form of reasoning is guilt by association and a complete and utter rejection of logical analysis at it's finest.

Saying "they're a bunch of liberal activists therefore nothing they say is worth considering" (which is what you are implicitly stating) is not a statement on the validity of their claims. Their ideology should not shield you from reading the claims and considering the claims in a prima facie manner.

Law is a primarily fact and example based practice, meaning that in a lawsuit you generally won't see (unless you're dealing with the sovereign citizens) ideological tiraides pushing a specific political agenda. You will see facts and evidence set forth to support a claim, even if those examples are contrary to what you'd like to see, they're still worth considering.

What would render the SPLC's claims not worth taking into consideration is if they were based in ideological spew as opposed to facts and examples. If you read the claim, you'll see this is not the case.

[Napkiraly]

Tbf I have lost all respect for the SPLC after they deemed Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be Islamophobes.

[Draica]

I do not think many of you are thinking rationally as it pertains to this subject.

Instead of evaluating the claims the SPLC makes in this particular case, you use things they've done in the past that you disagree with to rend anything they do in the future, regardless of it's potential validity, invalid or worthy of being dismissed.

That is no way to have intellectual discourse.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.

That's all fine, but that's not quite what they're suing over:

This case asserts claims for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Montana’s Anti-Intimidation Act arising out of a coordinated, repulsive, threatening campaign of anti-Semitic harassment directed at Tanya Gersh, a Jewish real estate agent living in Whitefish, Montana.

So, the claim alleges damages on three grounds, none of which is merely harrassment. Just shouting, "I'll shut you down!" is not intimidation, but backing it with other actions and threats is.

[Draica]

I am pro-free speech, but there is a clear distinction between speech and action. If I am actively attempting to harm your livelihood and the livelihood of others associated with you with my actions, it is no longer free speech and crosses into the realm of harrassment.

That's all fine, but that's not quite what they're suing over:

This case asserts claims for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of Montana’s Anti-Intimidation Act arising out of a coordinated, repulsive, threatening campaign of anti-Semitic harassment directed at Tanya Gersh, a Jewish real estate agent living in Whitefish, Montana.

So, the claim alleges damages on three grounds, none of which is merely harrassment. Just shouting, "I'll shut you down!" is not intimidation, but backing it with other actions and threats is.

The Montanna law they are using is clearly a harrassment claim. The quote you're using substantiates that.

Of course this isn't mere harrassment, this is a coordinated campaign designed to reign terror upon an enemy of the far-right authoritarians.

[Napkiraly]

I do not think many of you are thinking rationally as it pertains to this subject.

Instead of evaluating the claims the SPLC makes in this particular case, you use things they've done in the past that you disagree with to rend anything they do in the future, regardless of it's potential validity, invalid or worthy of being dismissed.

That is no way to have intellectual discourse.

I'm not. In this instance they are right, if the claims are true. It would be a case of harassment. I'm just stating that the SPLC are POS's in their own special little way.

[Northwest Slobovia]

That's all fine, but that's not quite what they're suing over:



So, the claim alleges damages on three grounds, none of which is merely harrassment. Just shouting, "I'll shut you down!" is not intimidation, but backing it with other actions and threats is.

The Montanna law they are using is clearly a harrassment claim. The quote you're using substantiates that.

Well, this kinda substantiates it:

27-1-1503. Civil action. (1) A public official, family member of a public official, juror, voter, individual, or organization that is injured, harmed, or otherwise aggrieved by the acts of another person in violation of 45-5-203, 45-7-102, or 45-7-209 has a civil cause of action against the person causing the harm.

(2) An individual or organization who is attempting to exercise a legally protected right and who is injured, harassed, or aggrieved by a threat or intimidation has a civil cause of action against the person engaging in the threatening or intimidating behavior.

(3) A conviction for violation of 45-5-203, 45-7-102, or 45-7-209 is not a condition precedent for a civil action under this section.

Yes, it uses the word "harassed"... right next to "by a threat or intimidation", things which are already considered outside the realm of protected speech.

But this is hair-splitting. The only interesting case I can think of is the one Napkiraly raised. I suspect a court would point out that boycotts are perfectly legal by themselves, and there's no reasonable way the state should force people to buy from somebody.* It wouldn't surprise me if there's case law on the matter already, given all the ink spilled over the First Amendment.

*: So long as that's the only thing being threatened. "I'll fix it so that nobody shops here anymore!" might imply violence, and then we get into "I know it when I see it" arguments. Probably. I'm not a lawyer. Taking any legal commentary found on NSG too seriously is its own punishment. YMMV.

[Minzerland II]

I wish the SPLC the best of luck against those Nazi twits. Free speech is not speech free of consequences, and when the things you say hurt or endanger innocents, specially in the form of hate speech, you deserve to face severe consequences.

But that is exactly what it is. :^)

[Liriena]

I wish the SPLC the best of luck against those Nazi twits. Free speech is not speech free of consequences, and when the things you say hurt or endanger innocents, specially in the form of hate speech, you deserve to face severe consequences.

But that is exactly what it is. :^)

Not really. Free speech is free from censorship, not consequences. You can't be preemptively censored by the state for defamation, but you can be sued once you've incurred in defamation.

[Pope Joan]

A good lawsuit is a wonderful thing. It can accomplish what legislation never can; it targets bad guys and hits them where it hurts.

In the wallet.

Thurgood Marshall was a genius at it